| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Tue, 10 October 2006 09:31   |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I think torps would be better, unless you get to Dooms...but what a waste of a ship hull unless you used a DD or something...
I'd vote against, I think, but it might be funny to see it.
|
Sounds like most would vote against.
Idea was in staying with theme of game to make missiles unusual but still possible, hence only one missile or perhaps 2 if instead used 100kt weight limit. W20 is reachable by games end, gives range 6.
Simplest replacement to rules would be replacing "5) No capital missiles (jihads etc.)" with ")5 No ship with capital missiles (jihads etc.) may weigh more than 100kt." (or "contain more than 1 missile/torp")
Examples:
Jihad destroyer/privateer w 1-2 battle computers (and perhaps 1 sapper). Early gatable, out range delta torps on retreat, nasty against early beamers.
Cruiser with several battle computers and sappers and 1 missile.
[Updated on: Tue, 10 October 2006 09:33] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Tue, 10 October 2006 18:47 |
|
|
|
| Shadow Whist wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 21:22 |
If capitol missiles are allowed, even if one or two, then can a starbase get them?
I think cap missile should not be allowed. However, I would be ok with 100kt restriction. I would also want starbases to be allowed a full load out.
|
Good point. Although stations have range 5 with torps.
Nevertheless my vote goes against capital missiles. KISS.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Wed, 11 October 2006 06:24 |
|
|
|
| Altruist wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 00:47 |
Good point. Although stations have range 5 with torps.
Nevertheless my vote goes against capital missiles. KISS.
|
Hi Altruist ,
You wrotee that stations have range 5 torps. so also all torps. from tech 10 are not alowed ? Or was this only a calculation problem ? ( Ypsilon Torpedo and higher have range 6 in stations )
ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Wed, 11 October 2006 20:51 |
|
|
|
| ccmaster wrote on Wed, 11 October 2006 12:24 |
You wrotee that stations have range 5 torps. so also all torps. from tech 10 are not alowed ? Or was this only a calculation problem ? ( Ypsilon Torpedo and higher have range 6 in stations )
ccmaster
|
Torps are allowed.
It wasn't a calculation problem, just laziness.
Before everybody gets confused:
Forbidden hulls: battleship, dreadnought
Forbidden weapons: all capital missiles (jihad, jugger, doom, arma)
And the vote seems to show that we want to stick to those rules without exceptions.
We are 6 players now. 8 players was our planned maximum. The game will be open to join for other new players until Friday 13th. Then it's closed, and latest then everybody should race to send in the race file to: micha / at / starsautohost / dot / org (fix it first).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Thu, 12 October 2006 16:40 |
|
|
|
Great!
Welcome to the game, CAL and wchart.
Now we have our aimed for number of 8 players, the game is full, race files should be sent in and I hope we can start already in some days.
Let's rumble.
PS: Updated first post to include a full player list.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Fri, 13 October 2006 17:48 |
|
|
|
Actually we have even 9 players now. They all appplied on the same day.
Initially we wanted a max of 8 players but decided to accept the 9th as well. That's it, though, no more players, please.
Players so far:
1. *Per
2. *Altruist
3. *ccmaster
4. *mlaub
5. *Shadow Whist
6. *Evaron
7. *Eric
8. velvetthroat57 / CAL
9. wchart
(* race files sent in)
If anybody wants to change his/her race design, hurry up.
[Updated on: Fri, 13 October 2006 17:53] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Fri, 13 October 2006 20:10 |
|
|
|
| velvetthroat57 wrote on Sat, 14 October 2006 01:49 |
Don't we need an even number of players for everyone to have a trading partner?
CAL
|
While an even number would be ideal, it would also mean that either you or wchart couldn't play since techically Eric applied directly per email some hours before. Thus there was some confusion about how many players we would have.
a) We have some very strong players who, as I fear and guess, have still a very good chance to win even when playing completly on their own.
b) It certainly adds some spice and importance to diplomacy. Just as a reminder: no pregame alliances.
c) As soon as the first player is defeated (or inactive), we have an even number of players again.
d) HW distribution and distance to each other will be probably better with 9 than with 8 players.
Thus Per, Micha and me made a fast discussion and decision that, as said, 9 players isn't perfect but not as bad as kicking a player out again after we have already confirmed his application.
I guess (and hope) that's a decision everybody can live or rather play with.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Sat, 14 October 2006 01:25 |
|
|
|
Hi ,
Who are the final player's now ? Have all send there race file in ?
ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Sat, 14 October 2006 10:58 |
|
|
|
It's posted even twice. Once in the very first post and then some posts above from here (at Fri, 13 October 2006 23:48).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
or BattleCruisers with 4 shields and 4 capacitors 
. Four Kelariums give about the same armor the CC hull has for a bit less iron, and a bit more resources. Under those conditions I'd rather have another hull, esp. because I find bazooka/colloidal CCs lack firepower.